it must have been the democratic president, because, well, ralph nader said both sides were the same




actions=consequences

NO it was not the democratic president because Reagan/Bush41/Bush43 were the namers

It only takes 4 to get a case to the Supreme court. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061013zor_7khn.pdf

Decision to not hear the case means the decision in court below stands, which means these particular 'gruesome' signs remain barred.

And in NO UNIVERSE is that a good thing.

fetuses.

One of the rules of thumb when challenging free speech is whether or not the speech that is being questioned is suspect solely because of the message's content.

Neither of us have to 'like' what is being said for someone else to stand up on a soapbox and say it.

When a judge decrees your "Peace Now" or "No H8" sign as 'harassment', you'll better comprehend where this is going.

an Easter processional.

You forgot that part. This was NOT church property.

The procession's use of public space has ZERO precedent over anyone else's.

Lest you are prepared to say someone's religious freedom supersedes somebody else's.

And you aren't prepared to say that, are you?

else's event, it's not out of bounds to allow people to avoid having a bunch of assholes trying to ruin their event.

I honestly wouldn't have a problem with laws forbidding what Westboro Baptist does.

Enjoy your protected universe where nothing that bothers you is allowed.

From a post on Reality Check

According to court documents, Kenneth Tyler Scott and Clifton Powell set up an anti-choice, anti-homosexuality demonstration outside of St. John’s Church in the Wilderness on Palm Sunday. The demonstration mostly took place on the public street and sidewalk across the street from the church, and while the church was conducting an outdoor Palm Sunday service.

But, for reasons not explained by the court, Scott and Powell started their show on Church property. The two began shouting and waiving around graphic, doctored images of “fetuses.” Scott was so loud he disrupted the services. The images the two carried were so graphic that, according to the court, those attending the services began started to cry and tremble in fear and anger. The court made sure to note children attending the services were scared and as many as 100 parishioners left in response.

The lower court issued an injunction and the protestors appealed, arguing that Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court that affirmed the First Amendment right of the Westboro Baptist Church members to protest the funerals of military service members protected their demonstrations here. The Colorado courts disagreed and said that while Snyder affirmed First Amendment rights to protest, it did not create a blanket right to disrupt private events in the name of free speech. Furthermore, the Colorado court added, the presence of children at the church services changes the nature of the analysis since their presence can create additional justifications for imposing some limits on the speech of others.


http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/01/18/colorado-supreme-court-blocks-graphic-anti-abortion-images-from-display-in-front/

Reality check the legislation...

It's one thing to say "These guys are rotten..." but quite another thing to say the law forbidding the conduct is great.

We don't have free speech to protect speech we like.

We have it to protect speech we despise.

Justifying the law without citing it is nonsensical and intellectually dishonest.

I realize there is a fine line here -- but it would be equally wrong to privilege every form of protest under the heading of free expression.

If I display pornographic images next to an event where children are present -- or dump a load of dog poop outside the windows of a building -- or rent a loudspeaker and drown out someone's presentation -- that is not free speech. It is behavior intended to disrupt.

If Tea Partiers attend a town hall and yell and boo and chant to prevent any business from being conducted or any opposing opinions from being expressed, that is not free speech either.

I would say as a general rule that any behavior designed to shut down someone else's free speech rights, or intended as extortion against groups whose opinions you want to censor, is not entitled to free speech protection. And it sounds like this incident falls under that heading.

conduct near the church when services are under way. Most of the restrictions were not based on what he had to say. Those parts of the order were, as lawyers would put it, content neutral.

But one part of the order raises a difficult First Amendment question: It bars Mr. Scott from “displaying large posters or similar displays depicting gruesome images of mutilated fetuses or dead bodies in a manner reasonably likely to be viewed by children under 12.”

In a candid ruling last year, the Colorado Court of Appeals said the order was meant to suppress Mr. Scott’s speech based on its content, something the government can do only if it has an exceptionally good reason. There was such a reason here, the court said: a “compelling government interest in protecting children from disturbing images.” The court noted in passing that the ban might seem to bar some depictions of the crucifixion.

In urging the justices not to hear the case, the church, St. John’s Church in the Wilderness, said it had “no interest in suppressing petitioner’s message” and just wanted to let its parishioners “pray and worship in peace” ...

In Abortion Protests, Which to Protect, Children or Speech?
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: May 13, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/church-suit-says-abortion-protest-upset-children.html

Soon, an individual won't be able to shout "Fire!" alone in a deserted field!

I'm inclined to let them do their thing. The problem is when they portray doctors as some kind of existential threat to themselves, when there really is none. Then some fundie takes that to the extreme of violence because they think they are saving their way of life.

Two men were there in the shopping area with a massive anti abortion stand. Horrible pictures of bloody aborted remains and plastic models of fetuses. These jerks looked so pompous. I wanted to say something to them but my husband held me back because he said they would achieve a victory if I attacked them. During the time I was in the area no one went near them and people were giving them dirty looks. These men will never get pregnant so they have no idea how women feel about an unplanned pregnancy. I really think it's a male chauvinist thing that women aren't smart enough to make their own decisions and if we get pregnant only the man decides whether the pregnancy continues to this I say to the fuck you.

That is not protected speech it is intimidation and child abuse.

The debate over images was not at the root of this. Neither is the right to protest. In this case Kenneth Tyler Scott and Clifton Powell issued specific verbal threats in the presence of children and adults who were engaged in the private religious practices of their faith on church property. The images they used were part of the threat. It is not only about the content of the images. It IS about how the images were used. Content is never neutral in this context, and yes the context does matter when you are addressing threats and abuse.

If it had been my church, my children and my neighbors, Scott and Powell would have been faced with immediate arrest for verbal assault...or they would have been escorted from the neighborhood for their own protection. We do not tolerate the Klan here nor anyone like them.

I have stood up in front of the Pentagon, The White House and the Justice Department. I have faced ugly deputies and angry crowds in North Carolina many times in my life and will not accept abuse of free speech for anyone. But what Kenneth Tyler Scott and Clifton Powell were doing is hate speech and it is not protected in the form they were practicing.

Then may we need to start showing posters along side these abortion protestors in malls and on the streets of our troops and those of the "enemy" that have been brutally slain, maimed or tortured. If the pictures of aborted fetuses upset people enough into challenging the current abortion law, then pictures of the horrific deaths and wounds of especially OUR soldiers should make them think twice about these two illegal wars compliments of Bush and continued by Obama.